warriorsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Leopardfoot
Style Concerns *Needs some quotes. Dunno who did this, but someone did. Rubytail 01:04, October 3, 2011 (UTC) Charart I was looking at a preview of Bluestar's Prophecy and it says she has green eyes.Stonestar 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Stonestar *Warrior image needed Picture Shouldn't she have a warrior picture? A queen picture too--Nightfall101 22:03, October 15, 2009 (UTC) The PCA will work on it. --Spottedwing 01:44, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Shouldnt the box say (where it has her different names) Queen: Leopardfoot? thats how other pages are formated --Aurorablaze 01:30, November 7, 2009 (UTC) Done and done--Nightfall101 02:24, November 7, 2009 (UTC) Sweetbriar! Shouldn't Sweetbriar be listed as Pinestar's father?--QuailflightTheCat 00:48, January 1, 2010 (UTC)QuailflightTheCat Sweetbriar was his mother! --Rain is quiet (Rainbreath 14:26, January 1, 2010 (UTC)) Tigerstar's Kin If Leopardfoot was Redtail's sister, doesn't that make Sandstorm Tigerstar's kin? -- 03:43, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Yes, they are cousins. 02:03, October 10, 2010 (UTC) StarClan? I thought she was in StarClan? Cuz I remember one of the books in a StarClan scene: "A slender black she-cat with a glossy pelt.. Can someone check in a book? [[User:Willowpool16|'Willow']][[User talk:Willowpool16|'''-pool']] 01:29, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Sorry I don't have the book but she should be in Starclan if she passed away Appleleaf 02:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC) It does say this in the history: "Moons later, Bluestar thinks about how she used to play with Snowfur and Leopardfoot when they had all been apprentices together. Bluestar says that Leopardfoot has passed away, and joined StarClan, but the reasons are unknown." So it is clear that she has died, but could someone change that under Post-Death? I am not quite sure how to. 22:13, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Graystripe? I was looking at the family tree and it didn't have Graystripes kits, or his mates, and most of the others, if not all, do. Is this an error or just the lack of space? --[[User:Hazelstorm54|'Hazelstorm54']]~I live in a winter wonderland~ 01:47, October 10, 2010 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out. I will work on that. 02:04, October 10, 2010 (UTC) Alternate? Since it says she's been described as mottled, does she need alternate character art? Ivystripe 21:16, April 4, 2011 (UTC)Ivystripe Where was that located? What page number? 01:35, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Mottled? Since this bit of description is contested by a member of the wiki, I need to bring this up here. I'd like the opinions of anyone that sees this. Should we include "mottled" in Leopardfoot's description? She's mentioned as being mottled in the same book she's introduced in. And, frankly, I know names aren't a sure thing for descriptions, but it ''would explain the name "Leopardfoot". Any thoughts? }} 18:07, June 22, 2012 (UTC) No, we shouldn't include it. It was mentioned once and only once, and I doubt that it was mentioned after that. Why should we include that? We don't know it's part of her description, therefore, it shouldn't be in there. We have a trivia statement for a reason, for things that might not fit in the description, obvious mistakes, ect. >.> So? Plenty of cats are only mentioned once at all and we include them. We have plenty of descriptions in character articles that have only been mentioned once. What, are you saying we should provide two citations for every description we use? We don't know it's not part of her description. I don't see any valid reason not to include it. }} 18:12, June 22, 2012 (UTC) I think that if she was described as that early in her life, it should be included. But if it were later on, we shouldn't. And she might be called Leapordfoot because she's fast.-- }} 18:15, June 22, 2012 (UTC) Actually, the two cite thing might actually be a good thing to start doing, especially if it's something like //that//. It's questionable, therefore, I think a second cite should be found. If you can find one, I'll admit defeat and bow out, but until then, I'm firmly against this. Is a mottled //black cat// even possible? o.o Why shouldn't we trust what the books say? It doesn't contradict her description at all. It's primary source material and we have no reason not to believe it. And yes, just like black tabbies are possible, mottled black cats are possible. }} 18:21, June 22, 2012 (UTC) It doesn't matter to me that it's from the books or not. It's questionable to me, and since I think that, I'm going to voice what I think on the matter. I have no reason to believe it, since it was mentioned once and only once. I trust the books, but not on this. The books have been wrong before, and they'll be wrong again. It matters completely that it's from the books. Present actual evidence that says it's incorrect, Cloudy. When we stop trusting the primary material is the day this wiki falls into the land of fail for good. Unless there's evidence (such as contradictions) that the source material is incorrect, we have to assume it is correct. }} 18:31, June 22, 2012 (UTC) Provide me with more than one cite that says she's mottled, and I'll believe it. From the books or not, mistakes have been made before. We don't know that this isn't one of them. : You might not agree, but the burden of proof lies on you for this one. We don't have to prove the book is right. You have to prove the book is wrong, otherwise we need assume the book is correct. The books are our primary (and highest valued) source of information. Unless you can prove it wrong, it's right. }} 18:40, June 22, 2012 (UTC) You know what? Fine. I'll bow out on this one. Not because of the "burden of proof", but because I value my place here on the wiki, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I'm still against it, for lack of subsequent mentions, but that's my opinion. : "Lack of subsequent mentions" hasn't been required of any other description I've seen. If you'd like to change those requirements, I suggest you prepare and propose a new guideline for PC concerning it. Your grace in choosing to bow out is admirable, and wise. I suggest that you keep your eyes peeled, and if you find anything that does draw the veracity of this into serious question (and more than just your opinion that a single citation isn't sufficient for proof) that you reopen the discussion. }} 18:48, June 22, 2012 (UTC) Sine when...? Since when is her description a mottled black she-cat?!?!?! That was just a mistake, she was only called mottled once. In the allegiances of BP AND CP it said Leopardkit- BLACK SHE-KIT WITH GREEN EYES.--Featherstorm9678 18:32, July 16, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678 First of all, dear, don't use caps. Second, don't overuse puncation. Third, check the sections above you /and/ the cite. Thanks, 18:45, July 16, 2012 (UTC) : She's mottled because that's what the book says she is. We have citations for these things, and no evidence that the "mottled" modification is not correct (save for being deciding it's that way without evidence). "Black" is a color. "Mottled" is a pattern. Thus, the two citations do not cast doubt onto each other becuase they describe diffrent aspects of her appearance. Until such time as there is either further evidence that mottled is incorrect (by way of either a statement of her being a solid or self cat in the books, or an author statement to that effect) we have to assume the text of the books is correct. It's not our jobs to decide what is and isn't an error. If there's no evidence to the contrary, it's considered correct. 20:38, July 16, 2012 (UTC) Trivia...? In Bluestar's Prophecy on page 46 Bluekit asks if she and Snowkit can go and congratulate Leopardpaw and Patchpaw, and Moonflower replies that they are "busy with their new denmates". This doesn't make since, as there were no other apprentices at the time of their apprenticeship. Should this be added to her and Patchpelt's trivia? :Dappletail and One-eye were still apprentices at the time, I think... :Yeah, they were. 22:48, September 4, 2013 (UTC) New Characters... No pages? Just wondering.... Can someone make a page for Flamestrike? I know this is on the Lepardfoot page but i really would if someone could. She is one of the kits of Squirrelflight and Bramblestar and I noticed that she wasn't listed on a page. She is an important character and is part of the new prophecy for the new series. Flamestrike Of ThunderClan (talk) 22:37, November 3, 2014 (UTC) :No. This is a place for canon information only. Unless 'Flamestrike' is a character from a published Warriors book, and not a fanfiction character or OC, they will not get a page. This does not belong here, and belongs on the off-wiki forum or another website. :Wait i don't understand why doesn't she get a page? She is a warrior cat character and she is going to be featured in the new warrior cat series along with Silverstreak, Dovewing and Bumblestripe's daughter. I've talked to the Erin Hunter authors on The Warrior Cats website and that's how i found out about this. Just wanted to spread the word and get her and SIlverstreak a page, since they are really important charactersFlamestrike Of ThunderClan (talk) 23:03, November 3, 2014 (UTC) :You need to bring proof that you've talked to the Erins. Otherwise, those characters will be taken as fanfiction creations and will not get pages. Plus, as of Bramblestar's Storm, Dovewing and Bumblestripe are no longer mates and as far as we know, Dovewing is not expecting kits. :What kind of proof should i present to you guys? I have plenty just don't know what you need?Flamestrike Of ThunderClan (talk) 23:17, November 3, 2014 (UTC) ::We need proof from the authors that these are characters in the new arc. Information from the Warriors Official Forum, or anything related to it, is not valid proof unless it is posted by a moderator (who is an employee of HarperCollins and can very well be indicated by the rank of "moderator" on their profile) or from the offcial and verified "ErinHunter" (or is it "Erin Hunter"???) account. We cannot and will not ever take word of mouth. No proof, no pages. ::I'll just make the pages myself no biggie :)Flamestrike Of ThunderClan (talk) 23:45, November 3, 2014 (UTC)